IMDb रेटिंग
7.9/10
5 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंTales of love across two films highlighting the very different challenges that face the couples, With Michael and Thomas just after WWII, and Adam and Steve in the present day.Tales of love across two films highlighting the very different challenges that face the couples, With Michael and Thomas just after WWII, and Adam and Steve in the present day.Tales of love across two films highlighting the very different challenges that face the couples, With Michael and Thomas just after WWII, and Adam and Steve in the present day.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 1 नामांकन
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I never miss "Masterpiece" because it is probably my favorite current, ongoing series, and it never manages to disappoint. "Man in an Orange Shirt" is probably the most frank and explicit of all of its offerings to date, it will not be for everyone, but it packs a powerful punch and shows the whole picture of what it meant to be gay when it was illegal in Britain, and presents an equally involving story set in the present. It would take very strong, charismatic actors to make this work on all levels, and they are first-rate: Oliver Jackson-Cohen (from "Lark Rise to Candleford," "Mr. Selfridge") and James McArdle in the post-war story, and Julian Morris and David Gyasi in the modern day. I was extremely impressed by the performances by Vanessa Redgrave as the older Flora and Australian-born Joanna Vanderham ("The Paradise," "Dancing on the Edge") as the younger Flora. Redgrave is still a force to be reckoned with--she is, first and foremost, a Redgrave--and the explosive scene with her grandson Adam is painfully delivered and deeply felt. Vanderham is poignant and unforgettable in driving home the point that her life has been ruined by the marriage "of convenience." There are excellent supporting roles by Frances De La Tour ("The Collection") as Mrs. March, portraying a woman trying to be strong under near-impossible circumstances; Laura Carmichael (Edith in "Downton Abbey") always enjoyable as Flora's sister Daphne; and Julian Sands ("A Room With a View") as the arrogant partner of Steve. I appreciated the fact that "Masterpiece" chose to air the entire film in one night. I am hoping that all viewers who saw this ground-breaking production learned something, if not tolerance, then understanding and perhaps even sympathy for a human experience that is no longer stuck in the closet and called "the love that dare not speak its name." I see Emmy nominations on the horizon.
The emotions, the love, the fear, the self-hatred, the harsh realities. I really loved it; however it felt incomplete, like we got part 1 and part 3 but they forgot to film part 2. Too many unanswered questions for a drama with this much emotional heft.
I can't remember when a movie has haunted me more than this one, at least since Brokeback Mountain, which has a similar resolution to the first part of this Masterpiece Theater miniseries. I was so sad after seeing Brokeback Mountain that I never wanted to see it again. But something about Man in an Orange Shirt keeps drawing me back again and again. Having the second part to help resolve the hurt and pain is part of it. But it's the first 17 minutes I'll remember most, in which two main characters meet in WWII Italy and, two years later, resume their relationship. The editing, the score, and two very attractive and believable lead actors are perfection. There's also a love letter, key to the plot, that will bring tears to your eyes, it's that beautifully written.
This two-part miniseries leaves many questions, such as what happened in the 60-year interval between episodes. The second part, set in 2017, answers many of them if the viewer watches and listens closely for clues. The two parts are so different, it might seem that there are two different directors. The first one plays out cinematically like a movie from the '40s or '50s, with lush colors, a stirring theme, the thrill of a long-denied romance explosively consummated, and a somewhat melodramatic conclusion that leaves the viewer wanting more. As an intentional contrast, the second part follows present-day stylistic conventions, with quick edits, repeating motifs, more sex scenes, and some dark and intensely personal confrontations. There's an interesting dichotomy raised by pitting these two episodes against each other: How can same-sex relationships survive a world that overwhelmingly condemns them, and what happens organically when the legal condemnation is removed but the prejudice remains?
All of the acting is superb, which is to be expected from the venerable Vanessa Redgrave, but the other lead actors (who don't yet come close in name recognition) are impressive in their very difficult and heartbreaking scenes. At the top of my list is Andrew Jackson-Cohen, who is the definition of leading-man material. I'd seen him in lighthearted or action fare, but this man deserves to be cast in more dramatic roles like this. I can't fathom why he didn't garner a ton of acting awards.
If you can, watch the BBC original. There are many short snippets of dialog and reactions that make the story feel much less rushed and add greater understanding of the characters' motivations.
This two-part miniseries leaves many questions, such as what happened in the 60-year interval between episodes. The second part, set in 2017, answers many of them if the viewer watches and listens closely for clues. The two parts are so different, it might seem that there are two different directors. The first one plays out cinematically like a movie from the '40s or '50s, with lush colors, a stirring theme, the thrill of a long-denied romance explosively consummated, and a somewhat melodramatic conclusion that leaves the viewer wanting more. As an intentional contrast, the second part follows present-day stylistic conventions, with quick edits, repeating motifs, more sex scenes, and some dark and intensely personal confrontations. There's an interesting dichotomy raised by pitting these two episodes against each other: How can same-sex relationships survive a world that overwhelmingly condemns them, and what happens organically when the legal condemnation is removed but the prejudice remains?
All of the acting is superb, which is to be expected from the venerable Vanessa Redgrave, but the other lead actors (who don't yet come close in name recognition) are impressive in their very difficult and heartbreaking scenes. At the top of my list is Andrew Jackson-Cohen, who is the definition of leading-man material. I'd seen him in lighthearted or action fare, but this man deserves to be cast in more dramatic roles like this. I can't fathom why he didn't garner a ton of acting awards.
If you can, watch the BBC original. There are many short snippets of dialog and reactions that make the story feel much less rushed and add greater understanding of the characters' motivations.
There was missing information and plot development in both stories so both should have been 90 to two hours long each.
In first one, there should have been some explanation as to the circumstance of how the grandson came to live with the grandmother and also what happened to his parents. Did the parents die in a car or airplane crash? Of a disease? It just left the viewer hanging.
There is a shot of the son in his school uniform and in a military uniform, but nothing else. I'd also like to know why the grandfather, Michael, died at 60.
For the second story, you can see some connection between Adam and Steve but there needed to be more plot as to that connection. Also, more background as to why Adam was hesitant in getting involved with Steve because all he says is "I can't" but he doesn't explain why. The jarring scene with the grandmother's harsh homophobia seems to come out of nowhere in terms of her reaction. She already had her suspicions of her grandson but then to react the way she did, didn't really make a lot of sense other than pent up anger from decades ago.
Then, at the end the second story the grandmother shows up at the cottage but there is no explanation given as to her remorse and what made her come about/change her mind about her homophobia.
Anyway, I liked both stories and watched them twice as I thought I missed some key information as stated above, but I did not because the information wasn't there.
In first one, there should have been some explanation as to the circumstance of how the grandson came to live with the grandmother and also what happened to his parents. Did the parents die in a car or airplane crash? Of a disease? It just left the viewer hanging.
There is a shot of the son in his school uniform and in a military uniform, but nothing else. I'd also like to know why the grandfather, Michael, died at 60.
For the second story, you can see some connection between Adam and Steve but there needed to be more plot as to that connection. Also, more background as to why Adam was hesitant in getting involved with Steve because all he says is "I can't" but he doesn't explain why. The jarring scene with the grandmother's harsh homophobia seems to come out of nowhere in terms of her reaction. She already had her suspicions of her grandson but then to react the way she did, didn't really make a lot of sense other than pent up anger from decades ago.
Then, at the end the second story the grandmother shows up at the cottage but there is no explanation given as to her remorse and what made her come about/change her mind about her homophobia.
Anyway, I liked both stories and watched them twice as I thought I missed some key information as stated above, but I did not because the information wasn't there.
After I had seen the 1st part about the heartbreaking love story of the two lovers Oliver Jackson-Cohen as Michael Berryman and James McArdie as Thomas March, I was looking forward to see how their love story would be going on. Unfortunately it has actually stopped at the end of episode 1. Episode 2 is actually another gay love story about the grandson of Michael. You can say it is a drama crossing generations.
That is exactly the problem, two hours for two love stories is simply too short to achieve a better outcome. Especially the love story between Michael Berryman and Thomas March is simply too short and that I guess and believe most of the viewers would like to watch a longer story for that part. The casting of the two actors Oliver Jackson-Cohen and James McArdie for the two roles are really perfect. They have the chemistry as that pretty pair. Their acting is perfect, watching them in this film just feel like that they are a pair of real lovers.
On a contrary the casting of the love couple of episode 2 (Julian Morris and David Gyasi) is not good. They are good actors but there is no chemistry between the two at all. If one has seen the chemistry which Oliver Jackson-Cohen and James McArdie have delivered in episode 1, one will feel the difference like fruit juice and plain water.
Also the story plot of episode 2 is also weaker too. It does not bring out much passion and spirits. However with crossing generations story lines and add with warm family love and tie between grandma and grand son, it is in a way still a nice episode to watch. The grandma's acting is nice too.
In my opinion, if the complete series is in three hours or at least two and a half hour long (like most 80's mini-series) with a longer well crafted story for the first part and eventually also for the second part, plus a better match casting for the leading roles of the second part, it will surely be much better. I therefore give it 7 stars only.
That is exactly the problem, two hours for two love stories is simply too short to achieve a better outcome. Especially the love story between Michael Berryman and Thomas March is simply too short and that I guess and believe most of the viewers would like to watch a longer story for that part. The casting of the two actors Oliver Jackson-Cohen and James McArdie for the two roles are really perfect. They have the chemistry as that pretty pair. Their acting is perfect, watching them in this film just feel like that they are a pair of real lovers.
On a contrary the casting of the love couple of episode 2 (Julian Morris and David Gyasi) is not good. They are good actors but there is no chemistry between the two at all. If one has seen the chemistry which Oliver Jackson-Cohen and James McArdie have delivered in episode 1, one will feel the difference like fruit juice and plain water.
Also the story plot of episode 2 is also weaker too. It does not bring out much passion and spirits. However with crossing generations story lines and add with warm family love and tie between grandma and grand son, it is in a way still a nice episode to watch. The grandma's acting is nice too.
In my opinion, if the complete series is in three hours or at least two and a half hour long (like most 80's mini-series) with a longer well crafted story for the first part and eventually also for the second part, plus a better match casting for the leading roles of the second part, it will surely be much better. I therefore give it 7 stars only.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाA lot of this is autobiographical for writer Patrick Gale. Like one of the characters in the film, his own mother did discover a pile of love letters in her husband's desk that were written to him by a male friend. She destroyed them, partly out of fear that the discovery of them would incriminate him in the eyes of the law and also out of disgust and ignorance, equating homosexuality with pedophilia.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें